Speaking of censorship, Neo-Nazi's wish to march in Cincinnati's ghetto

[Delirious]

CINCINNATI -- A neo-Nazi group made famous by a riot in Toledo in 2005 said it will march in Over-The-Rhine later this month.The American National Socialist Workers' Party said in a news release Thursday that it will march through the "infamous Over The Rhine ghetto," on April 20.

The march will end at a park for a rally where ANSWP organizers will explain the need to immediately deport America's Negro population back to Africa.

"The group's leader, Bill White, was the leader of the National Socialist Movement group that attempted to march in Toledo in October 2005, but a riot broke out that resulted in 12 injured officers, more than 100 arrests and considerable damage.
The ANSWP and White broke away from the NSM in 2006.

"We demand that the police make the Over the Rhine ghetto safe for regular foot traffic by white people, and our march and our permit is designed to force the city of Cincinnati to take on that responsibility, if only for a few hours," White said in the news release."

I think the fewer the number, the greater the glory," Ohio leader Justin Boyer said. "We're not looking to bring a crowd."

"They do things to incite crowds and counterprotests, if you will, which generally creates havoc and chaos," Cincinnati police Lt. Col. Vince Demasi said. "We will do everything in our power to control that and make sure everyone has the opportunity to say whatever it is they want to say."

http://www.wlwt.com/news/11593018/detail.html Links of updating of re-routing the march to a safer place, ACLU intercedes for Neo-Nazi's, NAACP begs the city to not provide tax-payer police protection.

Lovely situation, isn't it. Thoughts?
​

 

[Barracuda]

I think it was last year when the KKK had a march through Orlando or some place in florida.

 

[Swift]

So...after the white Americans brought black people here in the first place, they want to ship us back to Africa? That's such a trip.

 

[Tornado]

Especially since the time to be able to deport "Negroes" back to Africa passed about 250 years ago. Now your just going to end up deporting American nationalised citizens out of the country.
One of the teachers in my school is a white African American. Should he be deported? What if you were a black man with, say, Haitian ancestry?

 

[Swift]

Especially since the time to be able to deport "Negroes" back to Africa passed about 250 years ago. Now your just going to end up deporting American nationalised citizens out of the country.
One of the teachers in my school is a white African American. Should he be deported? What if you were a black man with, say, Haitian ancestry?

They would say you still originally came from Africa. But your white African American point is very good.

It's amazing that if a South African puts "african american" on a government funding application of any type, they get rejected the moment they find out they're not a black American. Total hypocrisy.

 

[Omnis]

They would say you still originally came from Africa. But your white African American point is very good.

It's amazing that if a South African puts "african american" on a government funding application of any type, they get rejected the moment they find out they're not a black American. Total hypocrisy.

Yep.


I think the Neo-Nazi thing is pretty funny, though. I want to hear what they have to say about the need to deport black people back to Africa.

 

[Metar]

Solution:



Square and simple. When I was taught about democracy about 3 years ago, the teachers, and the coursebook, all mentioned that a vital part of the "Right to express yourself" is the small catch, which mentions that you're allowed to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't offend or hurt anyone.

 

[Swift]

which mentions that you're allowed to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't offend or hurt anyone.

Those other people look pretty offended to me.

But yeah, I would like to do that to a new-nazi group. heh heh.

 

[Metar]

Those other people look pretty offended to me.

Which is the very point of it. While the rules do have to be slightly bent in order to have a working society (because everything, at some point, hurts someone), there are strict limits, in my opinion, about what people are allowed to express openly. If they had their secret rallies in the middle of nowhere, I could live with that. But marching in the goddamn middle of a (I assume from the text) neighboorhood populated by many black people is almost asking for a violent reaction.

I'll give an example more local for me. Israeli minister and big politician decided to go and say his prayers in the middle of a holy place for Muslims, where it is stricly forbidden for people of other religions to enter. Shouldn't he expect at least some sort of violent response to an obvious, severe teasing? Indeed, that act earned us about 5 years of non-stop fighting and bombings.

 

[Tornado]

But marching in the goddamn middle of a (I assume from the text) neighboorhood populated by many black people is almost asking for a violent reaction.

Nix the almost. It flat out is asking for a violent reaction. If the African American or African American supporters of said neighborhood strike out against the Illinois Nazis, said Nazis can turn around and blame them for racial violence and violation of inalienable rights, adding weight to their cause.
Granted, they are Nazis, so the weight of the HMS Titanic wouldn't be enough for their cause to be heard by any law-making majority, but by; being so obviously antagonistic, they are allowed to turn around and blame the attackers for the violence instead of themselves. It happens all the time in politics (the recent Naval Seizure between Iran and the U.K., for instance). The problem for the Nazis is that they are Nazis, and therefore anything they do will obviously be subterfuge. The problem with that is that people don't see it for what it is when it happens all the other times in the world and are tricked when it occurs.

 

[Keichi Tsuchiya]

They should come down here and march through Carol City. They won't be alive - ahem, here, for long.

 

[Swift]

Isn't it funny how if a group literally preach hatred and the radical annihilation of an entire people, the still want to shout it loud in the very face of the people they want annihilated...with no response?

 

[Metar]

That's the whole point - it's trapping the offended in a Catch 22 situation: Either you react violently, which means the offenders will become the ones hit and offended - since they didn't actually get dirty first. However, if they don't react, it will be received at the other end as oblivion on the "receiving" end, meaning they'll march again - since "there were no protests".

We get this situation every time the Settlers decide to march right into Hebron (deep Palestinian territory) just to visit Rachel's grave.

 

[Swift]

That's the whole point - it's trapping the offended in a Catch 22 situation: Either you react violently, which means the offenders will become the ones hit and offended - since they didn't actually get dirty first. However, if they don't react, it will be received at the other end as oblivion on the "receiving" end, meaning they'll march again - since "there were no protests".

We get this situation every time the Settlers decide to march right into Hebron (deep Palestinian territory) just to visit Rachel's grave.

Well said. 👍

I understand Hebrews wanting to hold onto their heritage. But to purposely put yourself into harms way to reach a grave, well to each his own I guess.

 

[Metar]

I understand Hebrews wanting to hold onto their heritage. But to purposely put yourself into harms way to reach a grave, well to each his own I guess.

My opinion is still against the Settlers marching in there. "It was ours 2000 years ago" is a point as valid as the point little kids always use - "I sat on that chair yesterday". Fine with me if they merge into a society, or co-exist with it in a friendly way - but the very reason for the Settlers to be Settlers in occupied territories is to strenghen the occupation, ignoring human rights and international rules of war.

But that's straying too much off-topic...

 

[Joey D]

Neo-Nazi should be allowed to march as long as they do not violate any laws in the process, just because there are groups that do not agree with them does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to assembled.

Look I don't like any protesters, I think they all need to get a job, but the Constitution of the United States outweighs what I think. The first amendment says people have the right to a peaceful assembly, as long as they don't break any laws there really isn't much anyone should be able to do. The groups that do not like neo-Nazi ideology have every right to peacefully protest as well. However, if either side breaks the peaceful part, they should be dealt with in accordance to the law.

This not only goes for neo-Nazi's, the KKK should be allowed to do the same thing, as well as any other group...even those Westbro Baptist people.

 

[Tornado]

Neo-Nazi should be allowed to march as long as they do not violate any laws in the process, just because there are groups that do not agree with them does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to assembled.

Look I don't like any protesters, I think they all need to get a job, but the Constitution of the United States outweighs what I think. The first amendment says people have the right to a peaceful assembly, as long as they don't break any laws there really isn't much anyone should be able to do. The groups that do not like neo-Nazi ideology have every right to peacefully protest as well. However, if either side breaks the peaceful part, they should be dealt with in accordance to the law.

This not only goes for neo-Nazi's, the KKK should be allowed to do the same thing, as well as any other group...even those Westbro Baptist people.

I'll get this out of the way first: I agree with what your saying. They have every right to do so.
However, if they are going to march through a Cincinnati version of Harlem or South Central. They technically aren't being violent, but they are essentially asking, condoning and causing violence to occur.

 

[Joey D]

Right and I understand that, but like what I said, is there anything stopping the black population from protesting them as well? There shouldn't be. And shouldn't the black population be above fighting back with violence? For the most part they demonstrated during the Civil Rights Movement that they could protest and not be violent (I know it wasn't always the case).

 

[Tornado]

Right and I understand that, but like what I said, is there anything stopping the black population from protesting them as well? There shouldn't be.

Protest against what, though? Protest against the Nazi's ability to protest? Protest against the Nazi's ideas that no one takes seriously anyways? They have the ability to protest against that, but why bother? No one pays any mind to Neo-Nazi parties, and they are usually little more than a nuisance in many people's eyes.
The problem is the small group of blacks (or maybe the small group of Nazis) that will be the catalyst for the violence that will probably happen.

And shouldn't the black population be above fighting back with violence?

They should be, but I can't honestly say for sure that I would be if it was happening to me. And even if most of the black population did protest peacefully, a small group of bad elements on either side is all that is needed for a riot to break out.



This really is a no-win situation, I think. The Nazis want to protest where they know they can get a reaction. Everyone else is trying to run damage control knowing that there is very little they can do.